S/31/PV.53 Security Council

The fact that the representative of the racist regime of South Africa has been forced to be absent from this hall since the twenty-ninth session is a firm response by the international community to the odious, immoral and racist policies practised by a shameful minority of mankind which, 011 the threshold of the twenty-first century, still acts with a morbid racist mentality unprecedented in history and related to the obscurantist times of the Middle Ages and the era of imperialism. The measure taken by the General Assembly in refusi.g to approve the credentials of the representatives of the Pretoria regime at the twenty-ninth session faithfully reflects the will of the international community and of the overwhelming majority of peoples, as embodied in the General Assembly. 2. This decision, which is responsible and cornpatible with the purposes and principles of the United Nations, is all the more important and significant as the Security Council has constantly failed to exercise its responsibilities as regards the crimes committed by the racist regimes, whose last bastions are in southern Africa and in western Asia. The Security Council has been unable to take the steps provided for in the Charter to put an end to the dominance of the racist white minority and its oppression of the peoples of Azania and Namibia, or indeed, to the aggression perpe- trated against the Arab peoples of Palestine, because of the collusion of certain Western Powers, permanent members of that Council, and their exercise of the veto. Those countries encourage the forces of aggression and the racist forces that wish to repress the freedoms of people and prevent them from being enfranchised and from being masters of their own destiny. In fact, the right of veto as contemplated in the Charter should be used for the purposes of maintaining international peace and security and safeguarding the rights of peoples to self-determination and independence. On 19 October 1976, at its 1963rd meeting, the Security Wednesday, 3 November 1976, at 11 a.m. NEW YORK Council was unable to impose an arms embargo on South Africa owing to the triple veto cast in the Council by the United States, the United Kingdom and France-a shameful episode in the history of these three countries, which uphold the principles of international law, human riglits and self-determination when regimes within their orbit are not involved but flout the same principles whenever their racist allies and regimes maintaining cultural, economic and political relations with them, like South Africa, Rhodesia and Israel, are concerned. 3. The policy of apartheid and racial segregation is not only an affront to mankind and human dignity, but also a violation of all human, moral and cultural values. it is also a crime which has no less grave significance or results than nazism or any other ideology based on racial, religious or cultural superiority. And if the international community decided to pass judgement on the criminals of nazism and to condemn them to death for their crimes against mankind because of their belief in the doctrine of racial superiority, why does the same community hesitate to judge the criminals of apartheid because of the crimes they perpetrate against the African people in conformity with the doctrine of superiority based on race or colour? 4. The doctrine of apartheid was adopted for the first time in 1948 in the platform of the National Party of the white minority in South Africa. Indescribable crimes and suffer- ings have been engendered by this policy against the black majority representing more than ~O per cent of the population. This policy of segregation is based on race and colour and on this distinction between the communities involved. In the area of utilization of pubJic services, of transportation and of living areas and in the exercise of political and civil rights, all this has-engendered unfortunate results as the non-white population has been considered alien in its own territory-a population considered as cheap labour and subjected by a Western minority of racists dominating the country by fire and blood. The white racists have practised the poJicy of apartheid with cruelty unprece- dented except in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, whose policy based on racial superiority was regarded by the majority of white leaders as admirable and inspiring. A few may remember today-after more than 30 years-the phrase pronounced during the Second World War by Vorster, the present Prime Minister of the Government of Pretoria, as narrated by Sarah Millin in her book The Reeling Earth: 1 "We stand for Christian socialism, which is an ally of national socialism. You can call it the anti-democratic principle, if you wish. In Italy it is called fascism; in Germany I national socialism; and in South Africa, Chris- tian soclalism."? 1 London, Faber and Faber Ltd., 1945. 2 Quoted in English by the speaker. 6. An example of these efforts is the sham independence proclaimed on 26 October last of a fictitious entity called the Transkei. Other examples are the manoeuvres of the Ian Smithregime' that wants to prevent the transfer of power to the legitimate black majority in Rhodesia. The resolution, adopted by the General Assembly {resolution 31/6 AJ almost unanimously refused to endorse this comedy of the so-called independent republic of the Transkei. This deci- sion was an affront to the white racists and their agents, that is, the tribal leaders co-operating with them to apply this policy of bantustanization because they are intimidated or confused by this policy. This is a sham republic and it has not been recognized by a single country since its bogus independence was accorded. I shall not refer to the fact that the United States of America did not wish to participate in the resolution that rejectedrecognition of the Transkel, We are used to seeing this country acting in an isolated fashion and whenever a decisive resolution is presented concerning the fate of peoples, their freedom and their self-determination, the United States has voted against it or, with a handful of other countries, has abstained in the vote: 7. None the less we believe that it does not suffice to adopt a unanimous resolution for the international com- munity to reject the Transkei conspiracy. We must exert pressure on the South African regime by all available means because this comedy of the Transkei is only the first chapter in the comedy of the bantustans, spawned by the white minority regime to dominate the people of Azania and Namibia. If a part of this conspiracy is crowned with success, this would substantially endorse the policy of apartheid. That would be a tragic success of the white minority regime that wants to destroy the unity of the people of Azania in order to preventit from recovering the power devolving upon it in South Africa and Namibia. This will enable the implementation of a conspiracy imposed on the bantustans, resulting in the ultimate alienation of the population of the country, in Azania and Namibia. 8. Moreover, it is impossible to ensure the autonomous development of the economy of these bantustans, as they will be cheaply exploited by the whites without any guarantee for the African workers, who outside the bantustans are treated as foreign migrantworkers. The area of the bantustans amounts to only 13 per cent of the total area of South Africa, while the Africans, who are the legitimate owners of that country, amount to more than 80 per cent of the population. 10.• It is ironic that all these countries that deal with the South African regime pretend to oppose apartheid or condemn this policy. At the same time, they are not ashamed to supply the racist regime of Pretoria with constant assistance, thereby enabling it to, practise the policy of apartheid and to emerge from the isolation imposed by the United Nations and by peace-loving countries. These allies of the racist South African regime, in co-operating with it, pretend that they have no dealings with the Pretoria regime as a government, but that they cannot prevent commercial corporations and private enter- prises operating in that country from continuing to do so. 11. Israel takespride of place among the countries that are accomplices and allies of the Pretoria regime, so that the Special Committee against Apartheid has been forced, in the span of 24 months, to publish four successive reports on the development of relations and co-operation between the regimes of Tel Aviv and Pretoria. The first3 was published after the Israel diplomatic mission in South Africa was raised to embassy level in March 1974; the second", after co-operation was intensified between the racist regimes in October 1974; the thirds, after the private visit of the Minister of the Interior of South Africa to Israel in June 1975; the fourth /A/31/22/Add.2J, after Vorster, the Prime Minister of the racist regime, visited Israel in April 1976. This last report, drawn up by the Sub-Com- mittee on the Implementation of United Nations Reso- lutions and Collaboration with South Africa of the Special Committee against Apartheid, should be carefully and thoroughly studied by all countries struggling against apartheid. If this report interests all third-world countries, and particularly the non-aligned countries, it becomes doubly important to African and Arabcountries, because it marks the historical and ideological roots of the unholy alliance between the racist Zionists and the racists of South Africa. 12. Indeed, if the alliance between the great imperialist Powers and the Pretoria regime was born of common imperialist interests, and in implementation of the imperial- ist plan to set up bases in the most important strategic regions in the third world, the alliance between Israel and 3 See document A/AC/.IlS/L.383. 4 See document A/AC/.IlS/L.396. S See document A/Ae/.IlS/L,4ll. 13. The racial exclusiveness of the racists of South Africa is like the religious purity of the Zionists. The Zionists, like the Afrikaaners, believe that they are the chosen people, although the elements and bases of this choice differ: for the Zionists it is religious and racial superiority, and for the Afrikaaners it is racial superiority. The result is the same: the occupation of a region by colonial invasion at the expense of the indigenous inhabitants, who have been either uprooted and driven from their homes, or oppressed and subjugated by the invaders, and subjected to every kind of racial and religious repression. In an article published on 29 May 1968 in the Die Burger review, the spokesman of the South African National Party described this analogy wen: "Israel and South Africa have a common lot. Both are engaged in a struggle for existence and both are in constant clash with the decisive majorities in the United Nations. Both are reliable foci of strength within the region, which would, without them, fall into anti-Western anarchy. It is in South Africa's interest that Israel should be successful in containing her enemies, who are among our own most vicious enemies; and Israel would have all the world against it if the navigation route around the Cape of Good Hope should be out of operation because South Africa's control is undermined. The anti-Western Powers have driven Israel and South Africa into a community of interest which had better be utilized than denled.?e 14. The organic link between Israel and South Africa was recognized in November 1970 by Jewish Affairs, which stated: "The argument that Israel and South Africa have a basic community of interest in the Middle East and further south has more than a grain 'of truth in it. There is nothing secret or sinister about it. The strong ties between the two countries, closer than ever since the 1967 war, are inseparable from their geographic and strategic position, from their anti-communist outlook and from all the realities of their national existence. . .. In short, the destinies of the two countries, so different in many ways, but so alike in the fundamental conditions of their survival, are interwoven in a much more meaningful sense than any enemy propagandist could conceive, or, for that matter, would be happy to see.,,6 15. The unholy alliance between Israel and South Africa is becoming increasingly close, despite the repeated condem- nation of racist policies and practices, or even because of this condemnation. The mutual understanding and co-oper- ation between the Zionists and South Africa existed long before the creation ofIsrael in the Arab region in 1948. 16. In fact, General Smuts, the Minister of Defence of the Union of South Africa, was among those most enthusiastic about the immoral Balfour Declaration of 1917, which promised a national homeland for the Jews in Palestine, the fifty-ninth anniversary of the proclamation of which was I 17. Since the creation of Israel, relations have continued to develop between Tel Aviv and Pretoria and reached dangerous proportions since the Israeli aggression in 1967, and particularly in the last three years after the October War of 1973. In fact in the last three years the South African-Zionist alliance has acquired unprecedented public and official status. Zionist military officials such as General Moshe Dayan and-guess who? -Chaim Herzog, represen- tative of the Zionist entity in the United Nations and General Meir Amit went one after the other to South Africa, and the Pretoria regime responded to these visits by sending its Interior Minister to Israel twice, in June 1975 and in March 1976. Even better, Vorster, the head of the racist movement, went himself to Israel in April 1976, accompanied by his Foreign Minister and a vast entcurage. The visit by Vorster inaugurated the escalation of the unholy alliance between Israel and South Africa in a way that threatens not only the Arab people in the occupied territories and the African people in Azania and Namibia, but all Arab and African peoples and the third world as a whole. 18. The South African regime during the Vorster visit concluded vast and dangerous agreements with Israel in the scientific, military, economic and industrial areas. I shall not, of course, refer here in detail to these agreements or to the development of relations between the two regimes, particularly on the technical and military scale, because these details were mentioned in the report and documents I of the Special Committee against Apartheid, particularly the latest report. 19. But I should like to quote from an article in the Johannesburg Star of 17 April 1976: "... [the pact} goes well beyond the usual trade and co-operation agreements which normally round out a state visit between friendly countries ... at the root ofthe pact Is a mutual exchange of materials and military know-how which both countries desperately need. For both, it is virtually a question of survival. Very likely that is the strongest imperative of all."6 But in its editorial of 14 April 1976 the Rand Daily Mail revealed the strategic aims of Vorster's visit: "By achieving a publicly announced economic, scien- tific and industrial pact with Israel he has done far more than merely formalize bonds that have, in any case, been growing stronger. He has, in fact, acquired for South Africa a public friend. an avowed ally, at a time when this country confronts an increasingly hostile world and an increasingly Black Africa."6 21. This General himself was one of the heroes of the strengthening of relations between his own entity and South Africa. Instead of hiding in shame after irrefutable documents and arguments that revealed this unholy alliance between the two regimes, he resorts to the practice that "attack is the best defence" and he applies the famous Arab proverb which says, "Eat them at lunch before they eat you up at 'dinner". 22. But it has escaped the Zionist representative that his cause is doomed from the start, because the involvement of his entity vis-a-vis the South African regime is so flagrant and serious that it can never be concealed, no matter how violent the attack. The organic Iink between the two centres of racism, Pretoria and Tel Aviv, is well known to all. It has become common knowledge and no one can conceal these facts, not even the Zionist or Israeli officials. The Israeli representative has not attempted to camouflage this organic relation between his regime and that of the white racist minority-but, resorting to all kinds of lies, he attempted to reduce the scope and gravity thereof. The only tool he used to defend himself has been the following: "Why condemn Israel, only Israel? We are not the only ones to have dealings with the South African regime and to have relations with it. If you want to condemn, then condemn everyone." As I have mentioned earlier, the international community has condemned all countries and regimes that deal with the Pretoria regime, including certain great Powers. 23. However, the condemnation of Israel assumes a particularly important character because of the perfect analogy in the policies pursued by the two racist regimes and the manner in which they practise colonialism and racial discrimination at the expense of the indigenous population and, more importantly, because of the dangers this alliance represents for the African continent from one end to the other and for the Middle East region. 24. Within the framework of his fierce campaign against all that is Arab, the representative of the Zionist entity attacked my country by quoting an excerpt from a statement made by his Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, to the Israeli journal Ha 'aretz on 30 }~pril 1976: "If. .. Syria should want to establish diplomatic relations with Israel, we shall not tell the Syrians that, as 10:1g as there is no democracy in Syria, we shall not maintain diplomatic relations with them." /49th meeting, para. 119.} 25. With regard to democracy and the dreams of the Zionist Prime Minister with regard to diplomatic relations with Syria, only one obstacle stands in the way of its realization, namely the Zionist entity. If this Zionist entity disappears, if the Arab lands are freed from occupation and aggression, if the Palestinian people recovers its lands and its rights, who knows? 26. The Syrian Arab Republic struggles in both the national and international areas by all available means against injustice, oppression, occupation, fanaticism and racial segregation, wherever these scourges are to be found. We have supported the struggle of all peoples for freedom in all struggles undertaken by the peoples in Asia, Africa and Latin America. We believe that the struggle for freedom is indivisible and that the victories of the national liberation movements in a third-world region can only have reper- cussions on the struggles waged by other liberation move- ments in other areas of the world. 27. In the context of this policy, Syria, with all available means, supports the national liberation movements in Azania, Namibia and Zimbabwe, as indeed it supported other liberation movements in Angola, Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau, until these movements were crowned with success. The Syrian Arab Republic knows perfectly well that, through its support of the national liberation move- ments in Africa and the struggle of the African peoples, it is also supporting and promoting the struggle of the Arab people of Palestine and the struggle of all Arab peoples waged for half a century against zionism and its ally, imperialism. Syria, which was the first country in the world to sign the International Convention on the Suppression .and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid [resolution 3068 (XXVIII)], continues its struggle against imperialism and racial segregation in all its forms and manifestations, because it is an active member of the Special Committee against Apartheid and the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples as well as the Co-ordinating Bureau of Non-Aligned Countries. It is also a member of the League of Arab States and the Islamic Conference of Kings and Heads of State and Government, as well as of all international and regional forums. My delegation, aware of its responsibilities in the Special Committee against Apart- heid and the decolonization Committee, declared its support for and its sponsorship of the draft resolutions submitted by the African countries under item 52, draft resolutions A/31/L.7-14. 28. T'ie time of imperialism and racism has come to an end and we are witnessing the dawn of a new world free of any racist ideology or religious superstition. The Pretoria 30. In this regard, it is worth recalling the words of the freedom fighter, Amilcar Cabral, when he said, "The people are not fighting for ideas, for things in anyone's head. They are fighting to win material benefits, to I've better and in peace, to see their lives go forward, to guarantee the future of their children." 31. For years, the General Assembly has been appealing to the Government of South Africa to comply with the resolutions of the United Nations. Instead, the white minority regime of South Africa continues to defy inter- national opinion and to deny the African people, the legitimate owners of the land, their elementary rights and a decent living as human beings. Apartheid is the root-cause of the present deteriorating situation in South Africa, and it is evident that .the complete eradication of apartheid in all its forms constitutes the only positive contribution to resolving the African problem in that part of the world. 32. And yet, in order to perpetuate and extend its policy of apartheid, South Africa proceeds to implement its bantustan policy by proclaiming what it calls the indepen- dence of Transkei, by which it emphasizes its determination to flout international opinion and all the laws of justice, humanity and the conscience of men. With the creation of the so-called independent entity of Transkei, the Pretoria Government apparently intends to give its inhuman ban- tustan policy a different form and shape, while attempting to obscure the real purpose and intention of its act, which in essence is nothing more than a racist and colonialist measure amounting, in the final analysis, to an attempt to enhance and consolidate the economic and political domi- nation of the regime over the vast majority of Africa. In this regard, Mr. John Gaetsewe, General Secretary of the South African Congress of Trade Unions, could not have been more clear when he wrote: "The lack of economic viability of the bantustan is a corner-stone of the apartheid policy of the South African Government, for it assures the continued supply of cheap black labour to white South Africa. The original African reserves, which formed the basis for the bantustans, were artificial entities created by the white man in order to provide labour reservoirs for the white economy." 34. But this is not enough. What continues to happen in South Africa today is bestial. It is very grave; it is provocative; indeed, it is a continuous incitement to Africa., What is involved is a challenge to the very basis of African independence. And who is to blame? Some of the very champions of human rights. Continuous events in South Africa and two-faced dealings with the Pretoria regime lead Africans to question a great many intentions of some Western countries towards the Government of the white minority in that part of the world. Those countries which, in an attempt to protect their global interests-what they call economic and strategic interests in the South African subcontinent that should be defended-have regrettably not only failed tu shoulder their international responsibilities but have also continued to provide the Pretoria Govern- menc with economic and military support. One really wonders whether those countries are not wearing blinkers as they look at the realities in South Africa and whether they are not missing the recent lessons to be derived from that part of the world, where turmoil and suffering continue and where the African population is focusing with ever-growing strength and awareness on the last remnants of world imperialism. Such short-sightedness on the part of European capitals continues to be an encouragement to the Fascist :"egime of Pretoria and as such is deplored by the whole of Africa. 35. No country or block of countries has mastery over the march of history. Those who may venture to think otherwise should have realized this' when they were proved wrong in Mozambique and Angola. They should have had their eyes opened by the heroic uprising of the populations of Soweto, Cape Town and Port Elizabeth, who showed that the victory of the African people is not far away. The determination of the South African people to achieve their liberty and independence cannot be described better than in the words of a young South African freedom fighter who only yesterday stated to a Western correspondent that "in this struggle, we will have to tighten our belts. Some will fall by the wayside. It is all along the road to freedom." Indeed, it is all along the way to freedom. 36. In accordance with our obligation to maintain and serve international peace and security, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, we have repeatedly urged the international community tu take cognizance of the realities in South Africa and the grave and dangerous situation which is gathering great momentum there. With particular emphasis, we have asked certain countries to alter their present approach to the problem and to refrain from any steps and practices that might encourage the Pretoria regime to continue with its ghastly, deplorable and in- human policy. Only by isolating the South African Govern- ment in all fields-political, economic, military, cultural and -,-,- 38. Furthermore, where does Israel stand on the moral fight? What attitude did Israel adopt towards the successive appeals of the Special Committee against Apartheid? Let us, without taking a lot of time, examine the Israeli voting during the thirtieth session of the General Assembly as regards the question of racism, when, on the implemen- tation of the programme for the Decade for Action to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination {resolution 3377 (XXX)}, Israel voted "No". On the world conference to combat racism and racial discrimination {resolution 3378 (XXX)}, Israel voted "No". On the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination {resolution 3379 (XXX)}, Israel voted "No". On women's participation in the strengthening of international peace and security and in the struggle against colonialism, racism, racial discrimination, foreign aggression and occupation and all forms of foreign domination {resolution 3519 (XXX)J, Israel voted "No". On the situation in South Africa Iresolution 3411 G (XXX)}, Israel voted "No". On equality between men and women and elimination of discrimination against women {resolution 3521 (XXX)}, Israel voted "No". On the special responsibility of the United Nations and the international community towards the oppressed people of South Africa {resolution 3411 C(XXX)], Israel was absent. On the question of the bantustans Iresolution 3411 D (XXX)], Israel was absent. On the status of the Interna- tional Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination {resolution 3381 (XXX)], Israel was absent. On the adverse consequences for the enjoyment of human. rights of political, military, economic and other forms of assistance given to the colonial racist regimes in southern Africa {resolution 3383 (XXX)], again Israel was absent. 39. I believe it is nobody's fault that Israel adopted this line in voting last year. We listened some days ago to the voices of the true representatives of the peoples of South Africa from this very rostrum. They have given this Assembly a clear picture of the magnitude of the crimes committed by the murderous regime in South Africa. They reaffirmed their determination to liberate theh peoples from the yoke of fascism and racism. Therefore, it is imperative that we should help them by all possible means to achieve their lofty goal. The heroic struggle they are launching against the forces of evil and destruction is the 41. The policy of apartheid of the South African Govern- ment has always been a source of serious concern for us, the Members of the United Nations, for the international community and for all men of goodwill who make laudable efforts to put a speedy end to this odious policy which affronts our consciences and wounds our dignity as men and as blacks-a policy which poisons inter-African and international relations and constitutes a threat to peace and security in Africa and, hence, in the world. 42. The policy of apartheid of South Africa is so well-known and has been so thoroughly deplored there is no need for us to recall the misdeeds of that inhuman policy that allows a minority of white racists to keep in slavery millions of Africans, who only aspire to live in peace and freedom in their own country. The explosive situation which obtains in South Africa is exemplified by events of these recent months and requires that the international community urgently adopt the necessary measures to prevent the situation from degenerating into a racial war. It is clear that the 20 million blacks in South Africa cannot for ever accept domination by 4 million whites; nor are they ready to accept that the whites should indefinitely deny them their right to freedom, equality and justice. 43. With the accession to independence of Mozambique and Angola, that haven of apartheid and racial discrim- ination that is South Africa and Southern Rhodesia has undergone upheavals. Thus we have witnessed the disinte- gration of the last bastion of racist and colonialist exploi- tation which has done such harm to Africa. 44. With the events in Soweto, Alexandra and elsewhere, the whites of South Africa have become alarmed and puzzled. In fact the protest movement by students in Soweto last June spread to the whole country. Johan- nesburg, the economic capital, was itself paralysed as a result of strikes. Then what appeared to be a passing revolt against the introduction of Afrikaans in schools actually became both the political awakening of an oppressed and muzzled people and the most effective action yet taken against apartheid. Even some chiefs of bar:tustans, hitherto considered tame, challenged the very bases of that detest- able system and now even say that they do not wish to give up their rights as South African citizens by birth or their share of the economy and the country's wealth, which they have built up in common. 45. The situation became so explosive that the highest religious authorities of the country broke their silence in order to ask officially for the abolition of the racial laws. 46. On the other hand, Methodist pastors requested the World Methodist Council to grant them the right to preach racial equality in their sermons since they realized how grave the situation wasfor their country. 47. Thus the South African regime was attacked by circles which had so far been silent. While the mobilization of all these forces is shaking the foundations of apartheid, the authorities in Pretoria persist in their perversity by pursuing a policy which has been condemned by the international community as a crime against humanity. Furthermore, to enslavement, repression, humiliation, arrests, arbitrary detentions and condemnations, we can add today the killings at Soweto, Alexandra and other South African cities which, after Sharpeville, have become symbolsof the uprising of the black people of South Africa against apartheid 48. We cannot but condemn most emphatically the executions and massacres that have plunged so many families into mourning. Blind repression will not end the rising tide of South African nationalism. Sooner or later, nationalism will triumph and, unless care is taken, it will triumph to the detriment of those who have sent soldiers against innocent victims. 49. When peoples are as oppressed and frustrated in their self-esteem and their dignity as are the blacks of South Africa, when they are deprived of their most elementary rights, and particularly the right to live freely in their own country, when men and women are persecuted and im- prisoned for no valid reason, when they do not even have the right to voice their resentment over the injustices inflicted upon them, and when they find that their only salvation is through violence, then we say that they are right because this is the only recourse their oppressorshave left to them. We understand and we share their motivations, even though by conviction we are opposed to violence. 50. The present revolt is the embodiment of South African nationalism which has now resolved to oppose the violence engendered by apartheid with violence. Neither the education given within the framework of the policy of separate development nor arbitrary persecution and arrests 'iave been able to prevent those men and women of South Africa from having new ideas and becoming men and women aware of their rights and their responsibilities and determined to assert them through all available means. 51. If the whites of South Africa persist in their obstinacy and refuse to accept today's realities, they will not delay the change now due. There may be a respite in the violence, but the anger and the hatred of the blacks will only come out of it intensified, too strong to be contained by the so-called riot police. The coming years will only be a nightmare for the whites. Every black who falls in Soweto 52. Everything has been said, and well said, about apart- heid. My delegation would, however, like to recall briefly its position on certain aspects of the problem. The Ivory Coast condemns the odious policy of apartheid, which is based on the denial of the concept of equality among races and which is an insult to the dignity of the black man and of the human person, and a violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Ivory Coast rejects any action aimed at perpetuating that system, such as the policy of "home- lands" and "bantustans". In that respect, we wish to affirm that we consider null and void the independence of Transkei and we reject in advance any similar independence of any other bantustan. 53. The Ivory Coast recognizes the legitimacy of the struggle of liberation movements to achieve their just demands. It supports any struggle, convinced that the problem of apartheid is essentially one of human nature and hence a human solution must be found for it through peaceful means. It willcontinue to advocate means likely to contribute to alleviating the suffering of South African populations and to preserving peace in Africa. It reaffirms the right of the people of Namibia to self-determination and independence and considers that this Territory should obtain early independence in unity and with its territorial integrity intact. In that regard it urges South Africa, which has shown a spirit of co-operation in seeking a peaceful solution for the problem of Southern Rhodesia, to show the same spirit with regard to Namibia, by working out with the United Nations the ways and means by which that Territory will attain independence. It urges South Africa to put an end to its policy of defiance of the United Nations and to co-operate with it in order to find a peaceful solution to outstanding problems, thus regaining its place as a member of the international community. 54. Many delegations taking part in this debate, in particular the African delegations, have expressed their concern over the increase of the military potential of South Africa due to the co-operation in that field it receives from certain major Powers. We share that concern and we ask those Powers to take them fully 111to account in their , ..We appeal to all States having an influence on the Government of South Africa to make it understand that its freedom of action to bring about a peaceful change is narrowing and that it must adopt the radical measures necessary to eliminate apartheid quickly and to enter into negotiations with the South African nationalists to lay the basis for a South African multiracial society. The present conflicts are the prelude to a gory racial conflagration having incalculable consequences. That is the reason why we continue to believe that if goodwill and courage are to be found among the authorities of Pretoria, they will be able to contribute, even now, to the establishment of a climate of peace and mutual confidence between blacks and whites in South Africa by putting an end to apartheid. 56. For its part, the Ivory Coast will spare no effort to aid in its own way its black brothers fighting in southern Africa. It is a le:itimate struggle for self-determination and national unity in Namibia and Zimbabwe, a legitimate struggle to ensure respect for human rights and human dignity in South Africa. The Ivory Coast will spare no effort to make South Africa see reason.

In the holy traditions of Islam, there is a saying which I would like to choose as the theme of my delegation's statement this morning. I cannot aspire to give a faithful, literal rendition into English of the inimitable original in Arabic, but I shall do my best to translate it roughly into English and the saying goes something like this: "Whoever among you witnesses iniquity, let him pro- ceed swiftly to smite it with his hands. If unable to do so, let him at least condemn it with his tongue for everyone to hear. If unable to do even that, let him at least condemn it in his heart, and, verily, that is the most feeble form of righteousness." 58. The tragedy is that, confronted with the abomination of apartheid for 30 years, this Organization, representing the international community ~ despite its ideals which are utterly incompatible with the iniquity of apartheid, has largely contented itself with that most feeble form of righteousness-with condemnation in its heart and con- demnation with its tongue, instead of smiting swiftly with the hand. 59. That is a tragedy, which merits an analysis of its causes and implications for the United Nations and for the cause ofhuman dignity, for which the' United Nations stands. It is certainly not impossible to prove that the responsibility for the United Nations confining itself to the levelof the most feeble form of righteousness falls, first, upon the shoulders of those States which by their abuse of their privileged 60. The question naturally arises, Why this anomaly? What are the reasons, what are the grounds, on which these Powers justify this positio ~J which is incompatible with their condemnation of apartheid? Vv'i; have been told- whether in this Assembly or in the various Committees in which the question of apartheid was discussed-that one reason why some Governments continue to deal with the racist regime in South Africa is that it would be better to have a bridge open to the regime in order all the better to influence it to alter, or at least to mitigate, its policies. In other words, we are told it is a practical decision for the sake of practical consequences. Now, if this is a practical and logicalpolicy, it must be judged in terms of its practical consequences. What have been the consequences of this claim that by keeping a bridge to South Africa open one can all the more influence it to alter, or at least mitigate, its abominable racism? 61. What we see is that, on the contrary, racism has been on the increase in South Africa. The consequences are that, contrary to the expectation that South Africa could be influenced to mitigate its obnoxious racism, it has been escalating the manifestations of that racism. A better case could be made for the contrary proposition then, the proposition that by enfeebling the regime,you debilitate it to the point where it cannot withstand the international pressures on it to diminish and then abandon its racism. 62. In the light of the practical application of this policy, then, it is not the belief that, by maintaining relations with South Africa, one can influence it to alter its policy and mitigate its racism that applies but rather the opposite principle. 63. Another argument that has been heard, both in plenary meetings and also in some Committees, is that trade and normal relations are not tantamount to assistance. I must confess that this hair-splitting does not appear to me to be very convincing. Any relation that has the effect of strengthening the recipient regime must be viewed as a form of assistance, whether it is intended to be so or not, whether it is openly described as such or not. 64. Among the States which have chosen to maintain and indeed expand their relations with the racist regime in southern Africa, there was one, namely, Israel, whose representative appeared before this Assembly two days ago /49th meeting) trying to defend his Government's ex- pansion of its ties with South Africa by adopting, in fact, an aggressive attitude both towards the General Assembly as a whole, and towards certain groups of countries, in particular. "United Nations Ambassador Herzog on South African ties: best defence is good offence. "Israel plans to cite detailed information on ties between third-world countries and South Africa as a way of hitting back at critics of its own links with Pretoria. The Israeli counter-attack will highlight the hypocrisy of singling out Israel for attack in this regard when the majority of States, including black African States and Eastern European countries, have broad and lucrative links with South Africa. Ambassador Herzog, in Israel this week for consultations prior to the Assembly, says he has found 'attack the best form of defence during his year of service in New York." 66. Ambassador Herzog repeated his promise in a speech that was reported in the New York Post on 19 October 1976, when we were told: "Herzog warned that, if there were an attempt to link Israel to South African racism by condemning Israel's trade with South Africa, he would have no option but to publicize a full account of all trade by other United Nations Members, including Arabs and Africans, with the South African regime". 67. I was therefore not surprised to hear what the representative of Israel had to say the other day. To select the strategy of attack as the best form of defence is his privilege, but to manifest that policy by distortion, de- liberate falsification of facts, innuendo, and diversion of attention from the issue at hand-that is apparently a specialty, a specialty in which he excels. 68. We were asked by the representative of Israel why Israel should be singled out. Why single out Israel for its relations with South Africa? A serious question merits a serious reply. And I think we should point out the following facts in reply to that question. First, Israel alone, among the countries of the world, has chosen precisely the moment at which the international community is seeking to increase the isolation of the racist regime in South Africa to expand and escalate its own relations with South Africa, and therefore to de-isolate South Africa. That is one reason why Israel merits singling out-if that is what is happening here. 69. Precisely the year 1976-the year which will go down in history as the year of Soweto and Transkei, the year in which the Security Council several times involved itself in the questions of South Africa and in which the General Assembly for the first time began to deal with the question in plenary meetings and to hear the representatives of the liberation movements concerned-that same year was chos- en by Israel to be the year in which to receive the first South African Ambassador in January, to receive several Ministers from South Africa, to wine and dine the Prime Minister of South Africa in April and to announce in August that it was beginning to build certain gunboats, certain missile boats, for South Africa and to train 50 members of the South African Navy in Israel in the use of ~ ~ 70. Furthermore, these relations serve South Africa's interests, not only Israel's interests. For example, take the Vorster visit. We are told by Israeli correspondents in South Africa-I refer specifically to the article by Benjamin Pogrand, writing from South Africa to the Jerusalem Post, on 20 April 1976-that: "The very fact that Mr. Vorster went to Israel came as a surprise. Not many countries in the world have been willing to have South African leaders pay official visits. The Israeli visit, when it became known, received support here as being desirable from South Africa's point of view in helping the country to break out still further from its international isolation." When we are told by the representative of Israel that many leaders of many countries visit other countries, what he forgets is that there are certain visits that have implications, motivations and consequences which must be judged accordingly and must not be viewed as normal routine visits by the leader of one country to another country. 71. South Africa selected this very moment to send its Prime Minister to Israel because that was a way of appearing to break out of its international isolation. The same thing emerges from the analysis by the correspondent of the Christian Science Monitor at Cape Town. In an article on 14 April, he wrote: "Coming at a time when Mr. Vorster's detente initiative in Africa seemed endangered by the war in Angola and the crisis in Rhodesia, the pact with Israel is considered a diplomatic break-through that could give new directions and a fresh impetus to South Africa's outward policy." An Israeli writer in Israel corroborates this. Naomi Chazan in the Jerusalem Postof 20 April writes: "One cannot help wondering what motivates the South African desire to foster closer relations with Israel. Clearly the paramount South African consideration is one of pragmatism. Its beleaguered regime considers any formalization or improvement of diplomatic relations a triumph." From Jerusalem, from Cape Town, from New York, the analysts all agree that the visit had a signiflcance and that significance was to dramatize South Africa's breaking out of the isolation in which the international community has sought to place it. 72. A further reason why Israel should be singled out is that it has given a dimension to its relations with South. Africa that is particularly sinister. Israel is using-and I shall show how-its tremendous capability to influence world public opinion, particularly in the Western countries where South Africa is concerned about its image, to whitewash apartheid, to whitewash the system in South Africa. Last summer the Israeli Ambassador to South Africa, "Mr. Ambassador, is it your view that, because of the special relationship between South Africa and Israel, it is the obligation of the Jewish communities in America, Israel, or for that matter, anywhere, to look favourably upon South Africa? " And his reply was: "South Africa has its short-comings, but I do believe that such a visit as yours here will enable you to have an honest look at South Africa. You will be able to, I think, divorce hostile propaganda from the reality of the situation, which I believe is far more sanguine than the propaganda, the anti-South African propaganda slant, tends to make out. And if you, in your various papers, present an accurate and sincere picture, as you see it, of South Afirca, you will be doing South African/Israeli relations a service; you will be doing South Africa a service." This was the directive given to them by the Israeli Ambassador in South Africa. 73. And how did they do? How did they obey? How did they follow the orchestration? One of them, writing in Jewish Press, wrote: "Israel's Ambassador has been shuttling from Johan- nesburg to Cape Town sending subtle yet unmistakable signals. When asked about apartheid the Ambassador says only that it is important to divorce hostile propaganda from reality, which translated into the vernacular seems to be saying: 'Cool it on criticizing South Africa.' " The editor then proceeds to say: "Certainly it seems to be the height of moral hypocrisy t'l criticize them for utilizing a system that was in practice in our own country, in the United States, less than a decade ago. It is et problem that can and must be dealt with gradually. The complexities defy the easy pat solutions that come so glibly when one is at a distance of 9,000 miles away. . " "Unna's subliminal message is the right one": a white- wash ofapartheid. 74. The statement by the Israeli Ambassador is followed faithfully by the Jewish correspondents whom he had invited for that very purpose. 75. Another correspondent, this time writing in a column in Jewish Week, Mr. Stone, criticizes the Liberals who suggest that South Africa turn to gradual equality, and he says: 76. The particularly sinister aspect of Israel's relations with South Africa is that Israel attempts to utilize its capabilities, which no one considers to be inconsiderable, in its influence upon the media in order to whitewash apartheid and make it seem less sinister, less objectionable, less irrational, and less inhuman. 77. The representative of Israel said that trade between Israel and South Africa is negligible-I believe he said two fifths of 1 per cent. Wha! he did not remember is that the figures mentioned in paragraph 54 of the report [A/31/22/ Add.2] do not include the information provided in paragraph 57, which says that trade in diamonds, amount- ing to some $100 million dollars a year, is "not included" in the statistics given in paragraph 54. So, to the figures noted in the table in paragraph 54 must be added the figure of $100 million given in paragraph 57. Furthermore, what the representative of Israel did not mention is the fact that figures change, and during the 10 years reported on in paragraph 54, there has been a tenfold increase in Israel's imports to South Africa. This trend is not negligible; it is unmistakable, significant and meaningful. 78. Or take the question of military aid. This is the glib way in which it was dismissed in the text of the speech of the represen tative of Israel: "The most blatant example of this kind of hypocrisy is the allegation of Israeli arms sales to South Africa." [49th meeting, para. 146.] Allegation? Who made the allegation? It was the Israeli Government-owned, Government-controlled, Government- operated radio "t.ation that made the "allegation". Is that an "allegation" . dismissed as an act of hypocrisy? If the Israeli Government engages in "allegations" against its iriterests, surely it is not acting as shrewdly as we have been accustomed to consider it to act. "Allegations", says the representative of Israel; and then he says: "I urge each and every one of you to open the Military Balancet on pages 44 and 45 and read the list of tanks, artillery, aircraft, destroyers and submarines that com- prise the large and modernly equipped armed forces of South Africa. It is quite evident that it is not Israel that supplied them." [ibid.] 79. The representative of Israel thinks that he is "kidding" a naive group of children. The reports are that the first of the boats will be delivered next January to South Africa by Israel. Obviously, if they are going to be delivered next January, they are not going to appear on pages 44 and 45 of the Institute for Strategic Studies' report. And clearly the numbers of sailors from South Africa being trained in Israel, as the Israeli Radio said, and the numbers of Israeli paratroopers training South African soldiers, as General Amit confessed, are not going to appear in a list of tanks and aircraft. ' 81. On the positive side, my country has regularly contributed to the United Nations Trust Fund for South Africa, United Nations Educational and Training Pro- gramme for Southern Africa, United Nations Fund for Namibia, and the United Nations Trust Fund for Publicity against Apartheid. I could add, too, that my Government's assistance to the liberation movements concerned, which is known to those movements, will not be a subject of boasting by my Government in this statement or in any other statements before the Assembly. My Government has not, then, at any time asked others to d.o what it was itself not prepared to do. Of course, the representative of Israel had something to say the other day about a London company which has Kuwaiti capital. He made it sound-I believe the words he used-"the principal shareholder of that company was .Kuwait" . At another time, he said, "Kuwait controls" that company, or he said that "Kuwaiti- controlled" company. There is a company in London in which private Kuwaitis have a minimal share, a share which is certainly not a controlling interest. That company, which traditionally has had dealings with southern Africa almost exclusively, is not under the control or influence of Kuwait. The moment Kuwaitis became parties in its holdings, they used their influence to divert the operations of that company, with the result that now the bulk of that company's operations are in 20 independent African States and the share of that company's operations in southern Africa has become totally negligible and minimal. 82. In conclusion, we commend the work and the report of the chief international agency concerned with apartheid, namely the Special Committee against Apartheid. We salute

My Government "opposes and condemns the apartheid policy of the Government of South Africa. We do so because we recognize racial prejudice as a dangerous disease threatening the healthy development of the human race and racial discrimination as an unmitigated evil of society. The policy ofapartheid is based upon racial prejudice and racial discrimination. It is the most thorough, the most systematic and the worst form of racial discrimi- nation practised anywhere in the world today. 84. The evil of racial discrimination is not, however, unique to South Africa or confined to southern Africa. It is unfortunately present in many parts of the world. There- fore, as we oppose and condemn the apartheid policy of the Government of South Africa, we must equally resolutely oppose and condemn racial discrimination wherever it rears its ugly head. 85. A few days ago, on 26 October 1976, my delegation joined 133 other delegations in casting an affirmative vote on draft resolution A/31/L.5. What is the basis for our opposition to the bantustan policy? Why have we withheld our recognition from the Transkei? We oppose the ban- tustan policy for at least five reasons. First, we oppose it because it is not a policy freely chosen by the majority in South Africa. It is a policy imposed on the majority by the minority. Secondly, we oppose it because it is intended to deprive the black citizens of South Africa of their rights and privileges as citizens. The policy will have the effect of disenfranchising them in their own country. Thirdly, we oppose the bantustan policy because it seeks to create 10 ghetto states for the black population of South Africa. The 10 black ghetto states or bantustans will have only 13 per cent of the land for 80 per cent of the population of South Africa. Fourthly, the bantustan policy will arrogate to the white population of South Africa', who constitute only 16 per cent of the total population, 87 per cent of the land and a disproportionate percentage of the resources of the country. Fifthly, we oppose the bantustan policy because, in the final analysis, it is a policy designed to perpetuate the evil of racial prejudice and racial discrimination. 86. Why should we withhold our recognition of the Transkei? Is it because the Transkei does not possess the characteristics of a State under international law? In my submission we should reject the Transkei and withhold our recognition not for reasons of law but for reasons of political morality. We have argued that the bantustan policy should be opposed. We reject the Transkei because we reject the foundation on which it stands. The super- structure must fall because the substructure is unsound. 87. What can we, the representatives of Member States, do in order to bring about a change in the racial policy of the Government of South Africa? How can we support those, within South Africa, who are struggling for a new social order, a new order free from racial prejudice and racial discrimination? I begin my answer to this question by 88. We who are on the outside can assist their struggle. We can assist their struggle in a number of different ways. First, we should continue to disseminate information on apart- heid as widely and as effectively as possible. In this way, we can arouse international public opinion and maintain the international community's uhanimous judgement that apartheid is an evil policy. Secondly, we should maintain and even increase international pressure against South Africa. Thirdly, we should seek to intensify the isolation of South Africa. To this end, my delegation would appeal to all States which currently maintain political, military, economic, cultural, sports and other forms of collaboration with South Africa to consider reducing such collaboration, and if possible, eliminate them altogether. Fourthly, we should support the activities of the United Nations Special Committee against Apartheid. Fifthly, we should, each within our means, render material and other forms of assistance to the victims of apartheid and to South African movements opposed to that policy. 89. I should like to end my statement by asking, What future lies ahead for South Africa? My answer is that two different futures lie ahead for South Africa. The people of South Africa, especially the white minority, stand at a critical juncture in their history. They must choose which one of two roads they wish to travel. They can choose the road of racial prejudice and racial discrimination. This will lead inevitably to the intensification of racial conflict. At the end of this road I foresee violence and bloodshed. 90. I see another future for South Africa-a future free of racial prejudice and racial discrimination. I see a new South Africa in which all men and women, irrespective of their race, colour and creed, are brothers and sisters, with equal rights and privileges, living side by side and caring for each other. The white South African author, Alan Paton, valiant opponent of apartheid, shares this vision. He has described the South Africa he wants in the following words: "The first thing I want is to be able to live in a street where any other South African could live. I should like to have as my neighbour any other South African who wanted to live there... I should like to worship in a church where one could see with one's eyes the unity which Christ commanded. . .. I look for the day when the words 'South Africa' will fill every South African with pride, because that will be the day when no South African is being hurt or humiliated or deprived or privileged by reason of his colour or race." 91. Alan Paton's vision of a new South Africa is shared by many black and Coloured leaders of that country. It is a vision which inspired the late Chief Albert Lutuli, This is what he said: "In government we will not be satisfied with anything less than direct individual suffrage and the right to stand for and be elected to all organs of government. In 92. Towards the end of Alan Paton's novel, cry the Beloved Country, the venerable Zulu patriarch, Msimangu, "who had no hate for any man", looks out across the Natal hills and says heavily: " ... I have one great fear in my heart, that one day when they [the whites] turn to loving they will find we are turned to hating."8

This year's debate on apartheid takes place in the lengthening shadow of confrontation and violence in South Africa. Over 300 lives have been lost, countless others have been injured. Hundreds more have been detained, many for no reason other than that they oppose apartheid. The people of the United States mourn with those who have lost their brave young friends and children. The position of my Govern- ment has been made clear by Secretary of State Kissinger in a speech in Philadelphia on 31 Augrst when he said: "South Africa's internal structure is incompatible with any concept of human dignity. We are deeply saddened by the recent and continuing clashes in black urban townships, universities and schools throughout South Africa. They are dramatic evidence of the frustration of black South Africans towards a system which denies them status, equality and political rights. No system that leads to political upheavals and violence can possibly be just or acceptable, nor can it last. The United States must be true to its own beliefs. We urge South Africa to take accour, t of the conscience of humanity. We will continue to use all our influence to bring about peaceful change, equality of opportunity and basic human rights in South Africa." 94. The United States has not wavered from this position, nor will it. In taking this position, we recognize that no nation or political system can claim a perfect record in the field of human rights. We are all too keenly aware that respect for the dignity of the human being is declining in too many countries in nearly every region of the world and that this General Assembly, which is dedicated to universal principles, frequently applies them in a highly selective fashion. At a time when consciousness of human rights violations is increasing, so too is the number of States where fundamental standards of human behaviour are not observed. The situation in South Africa, founded as it is on a racially discriminatory legal system, is of particular concern and commands our attention and our condemnation, 96. We are concerned that, unless substantial changes in South African society are forthcoming, the violence will increase and inevitaly destroy a rich and productive country capable of providing for the economic and social needs of all its citizens. This would be a tragedy for all South .Africans, We urge the South African Government to make decisions necessary to dismantle the apartheid system and to respond positively to the urgent need for genuine freedom for all its people. 97. If I might just add one very brief personal note because of the very moving conclusion of the statement we have just heard from the distinguished representative of Singapore. This is in the nature of a people-to-people statement, not a government-to-government one, for I am not a professional diplomat, br rather, as is a tradition in

I should like to inform the As- sembly that, at the request of the Chairman of the Special Committee against Apartheid and with the agreement of the Chairman of the Special Political Committee, it has been arranged that a mm dealing with the events in Soweto in June this year will be shown in this hall tomorrow morning. The meetingrose at 1.15 p.m.